Skip to main content

The Difference between Change and Release Management

There is often confusion between the goals, authorities and roles of Change and Release Management.  In fact, the objectives of each of process are very, very different.

Change rules! Change Management is an authoritative process that governs anything that potentially impacts a new or existing service.  It is both the enabler of innovation and protector of stability.   It is first and foremost a risk management process.   It is also a planning process.  

If Change Management is a governance process, Release Management is an action process.  Under the authority of Change, Release builds, tests and releases new or updated services into the production environment.  Every release is comprised of a single change or package of changes.  Release Management is more technical than Change.

If done well, both processes will avoid unnecessary levels of bureaucracy and will build a collection of change and release models that pre-define and pre-approve the rigor required based on levels of risk.  The more mature the processes, the higher number of standard changes.    Approaches such as Agile and DevOps help to limit over processing while improving the flow of all changes from concept to operation.


A learner recently asked about the relationship between projects, the PMO and Change/ Release Management.  Remember, that Change and Release Management are only processes – on their own they do nothing – they must be executed by people.  Every project will likely spawn multiple changes to infrastructure, applications and/or documentation.  Each change will either be unique or fall within the bounds of an existing change model.   Releases emanating out of the project can be handled singularly, sequentially or packaged together when it makes sense.    Since the PMO will manage the project, I would expect that the PMO would similarly request and manage the changes.

See more blogs about this. And ITSM Academy's ITIL portfolio: www.itsmacademy.com/itil


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner?

I was recently asked to clarify the roles of the Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner and wanted to share this with you.

Roles and Responsibilities:
Process Owner – this individual is “Accountable” for the process. They are the goto person and represent this process across the entire organization. They will ensure that the process is clearly defined, designed and documented. They will ensure that the process has a set of Policies for governance.Example: The process owner for Incident management will ensure that all of the activities to Identify, Record, Categorize, Investigate, … all the way to closing the incident are defined and documented with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, handoffs, and deliverables. An example of a policy in could be… “All Incidents must be logged”. Policies are rules that govern the process. Process Owner ensures that all Process activities, (what to do), Procedures (details on how to perform the activity) and the policies (r…

How Does ITIL Help in the Management of the SDLC?

I was recently asked how ITIL helps in the management of the SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle).  Simply put... SDLC is a Lifecycle approach to produce the software or the "product".  ITIL is a Lifecycle approach that focuses on the "service".
I’ll start by reviewing both SDLC and ITIL Lifecycles and then summarize:
SDLC  -  The intent of an SDLC process is to help produce a product that is cost-efficient, effective and of high quality. Once an application is created, the SDLC maps the proper deployment of the software into the live environment. The SDLC methodology usually contains the following stages: Analysis (requirements and design), construction, testing, release and maintenance.  The focus here is on the Software.  Most organizations will use an Agile or Waterfall approach to implement the software through the Software Development Lifecycle.
ITIL  -  is a best practice for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the needs …

Incidents when a Defect is Involved

Question: We currently track defects in a separate system than our ticket management system. With that said, my question is does anyone have suggestions and/or best practices on how to handle incidents when a defect is involved? Should the incident be closed since the defect is being worked on in another defect tracking system if it is noted in the incident ticket? I am considering creating an incident statuses of 'closed-unresolved' so the incident can still be reported on in our ticket management system but know it is being worked on/tracked in the defect system. With defects, it is possible that we may never work on them because they are very low priority and the impact is low to the user. However, in some cases a defect is being worked on. Should we create a problem ticket instead?
Thanks, René W.

Answer: RenĂ©. In ITIL, the activity you are describing is handled by the Problem Management process. ITIL does not use the term “defect” but it does use the term “known error” to…